DOCON8114 RESUME

ED 133 784 CS 501 597

TITLE Public Television Survey; Report 2: On-AirFund-Raising.

INSTITUTION Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Washington,D.C.;,Statistical Research, Inc., Westfield N.J.

PUB DATE Sep 76NOTE 32p.; Foi related docutents, see CS 501 596-599

/ EDRS PRICE HF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTOR'S *Audiences; Demography; Financial Support;,National

Urveys; Participant Characteristics; *Programing,(Broadcast); *Publicize; *PubliF Television;*Television Research; Televisio Surveys; *TelevisionViewing; Viewing Time

IDENTIFIERS- *Fund Raising

it

ABSTRACT . .

This report, the second in a series of four,describes part of a national study commissioned by the Corpdration.for Public Broadcasting to investigate audience awareness of publictelevision, level of viewing, and reaction to programming and on-airfund raising. Specifically, reaction to on-air fund raising is thefocus of this discussion. Data collected from ,083 randoml s lectedadults living in telephone-and-television ho holds surveyed t efollowing: avareneis of funding sources, exposure and reaction o.

on-air fund raising, specific statements about fund raising, fundappeals and programming, reactions of nonvievers, and characteristicsand attitudes of donors to public television. Appendixes include a.desqription of evaluation methodology and ,a copy of the questionnaireused in the investigation. (KS)

**********************************************************1**********44Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished *

* materials not available from other .sources. ERIC makes every efforf**-* to obtain the best copy available. Nevertgeless, items of marginal'* reproducibility are often encountered and thi,s affects the qaalitf ** of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available *

* via'the.ERIC Document Repro4uction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not ** responsible for the qualityrof the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be 'Wade from the originall.*******************************************************i***************

U S OE PARTMENT OP PlEAM,TH,EDUCATION & WELPARENATIONAL INSTITUTE Of

. EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO.DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN;ATING TT POINTS OF VIEW OR opIN,IONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY RERRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATICT L INSTITUTEOFEDUCATION POSITION 0 POLICY !

PUBLICTFLEVISION SURVEY

REPORT 1:[ REPORT 2 :

REPORT 3:

REPORT 4:

SEPTEMBER

FEBRUARY 1976

6 .6

AWARENESS AND VIEWING

ON-AIR PUND-RAISING 1

PROGRAMMING

METHODOLOGY

1.

STATISTICALRESEARCH, INC. \111 Prospect -StreetWesifield, New Jersey 07090201 - 654 - 4000

c

AFurther distribution of this report is.;.through the'Public

Broadcasting Service's Station Independence Program (SIP),

4015 L'Enfant Plaza West, S.W., Washingt6n, D.C. 20024.

)

FOREWORD

During February 1976, a national survey was conducted to.in-vestigate public television awareness nd viewing, and reac-

tions to on-air fund-raising and programming. A descriptionof the,conduct pf that survey and an analysi,,s of the results

have been organlzed into four reports, each concentrating onone aspect of the study, as follows:

1. Awarerrs and Viewing

t. On,7Air Fund-Raising

3. Promsamming

4. Methodology 0

\\

i\All four reports are availablP from the Corporation for PublicBroadcasting, which commissio7 -1 the study. The survey wasperformed by Statistical Rese&- , Inc. of Westfield,'NewJersey.

Because the investigation is based on a survey among a sampleof persons, rather than among all persons, the data are sub-

ject to sampling errors. Moreover, survey results are ob-tained through particular procedures which are subject to '1w--sampling errors that may be associated with the type of sampleselected, the use of telephone households, the fact that not,all designated sample members cooperated, the question that

were asked, and so forth. Therefore, in piterpreting thesedata, the user should give full consideration to the methods

gsed to compile them. Each of the first three reports listed

above contains a brief methodological appendix. The readeris also encouraged to review the more compTa4ensive reportdevoted to methodology.

(

PUBLIC TELEVISION SURVEY

REPORT 2 - ON-AIR FUND-RAISINP,

CONTENTSiar

P

Page

Foreword

Introduction 1

Highlights of Findings 3

Findings 5

Awareness of Funding Sources 5

Exposure to On-Air/fund-Raising 5

Reaction to On-Air Fund-Raising.. 5

°S13ecific Statements on Fund-Raising 8

Reaction to OnlAir Fund-Raising Reconsidered. 10

Trade-Off: ,Fund Appeals.and Programming 11

Reactions of Nonviewers 11

Donors to PTV 12

Appendices

A: Methodology ,.. 15

B: Copy of Questionnair. 19

7

5

Igo

PUBLIC TELEVISION SFRVEYFEBRUARY 19176

REPORT 2 - ON-AIR.FUND-RAISING

INTRODUCTION

This report is one of fOur describing a nationwide study ofpublic television awareness and viewing,`and reactions to on-air fund appeals lnd programming

Purpose

The study was to investigate:A

- The level of awareness of public television 4.

among the adult population of the UnitedStates as of early 1976 (Report Number 1)

* - The level of viewing of public television (Report Number 1)

- Reactions to on-air fund-raising by public .

television stations (Report-Number 2)

Reactions to current programming on tele-vision in general and public televisionspecifically (Report Number 3)

- Perception of gaps in programming.thatpeople want to,have filled (Report Ntmber 3)

- Demographics of subsegments of the popula-tion identified in terms of their degreeof involvement with public.television (Report Number 1)

Not all of these purposes were assigned equal. priority: primeemphasis was on awareness, viewing, and fund-raising ratherthan on programming. It was intended that the study, providebenchmark data against which to track trends in PTV awarenessand viewing, and in, reactions to on-air pledge dampaigns., over

time. FOr that reason, the survey was conducted in February,prior to Festival '76, to obtain a reading independent of thespecial effects of the major promotional effort of the public

television3

year.

6

49'

2.

Procedures

Interviews weRe conducted by telephone with 1083 adults, 18years of age or older, randomly selected'from among all adultsliving in telephone and television households in the continen-tal United States. In order to include both listed and un-listed telephone households in their proper proportion, arandom-digit dial sample was uqed.

Appendix A provides a brief discussion of sampling procedures,interviewer training and,supervision, and variability of sur-vey results. These issues are reviewed in,more detail in thefourth report of this series, on Methodology.

:Appendix B contains a "copy of the questionnaire.

The data whith were collected have been tabulated for many sub-groups of the population: viewers and noftviewers of public'televisibn, people who are aware of their PTV channel unaidedand those whose'awareness is at a lower level or nonexistent,those who have seen on-air fund-raising appeals and those whohave not., viewers who report donations to PTV and viewers whodo not, people who have cable television and those who do not,etc. Some of the tabulations _are reported/iA these volumes in

. some detail; others are touched.upon; still others are not men-tioned. All have been provided to the Corporation for PublicBroadcasting.

Report 1 discusses alternative efinitions of a "viewer" ofpublic televiSion. Briefly, a person CA referre to herein asan "ever-viewer" if heor she,responded positive y to the ques-tion, "Have you ever watqhed any programs on Cha nel , thepublic television statio ," but did not report having watched"last week." Those who 1eported watching "last week"Jarereferred to as "past-week viewers." More loosely, the everviewers and past-week viewers together constitute a group who"ever watdh" PTV, as distinguished from total nonviewers whodo not report having ever watched.

fr

7

HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS

3.

Following arg some selected findings of a nati,onal survey

on public, television, conducted via telephone interviews in

February 1976. These reduits are discussed in more detail

and are documented in the "Findings" section of this report.

The public, and particularly that portion of it which everviews public television, responds in a generally positivemanner to on-air fund-raising for support of PTV.

In response to a pair of open-end questions asking reactionto on-air appeals, a't least one favorable comment is sub-mitted by 77 percent of ever viewers and 85 percent ot past-.week viewers. Most frequently the response references theneed for funds or the worthwhile nature of the appeals.

At least one negative comment comes from 24 percent of ever., viewers and 32 peroent of past-week viewers. They most fre-quently refer to a general dislike of, or refutatioh of the

need for, fund.,-raising on-air. Only very small proportionsof viewers state that the appeals are repetitious or presented

too frequently.

In reacting to a series of statements that might be madeabout on-air fund-raising, a majority of people who everwatch PTV agree that the appeals are necessary to the,s,ur-

vival of public television (88 percent), that they,t6lerate-.the appeals although they wish they were unnecessary (61percent), and that the appeals are even enjoyable (56 Percent).

On the other hand, 55 percent agree.that appeals make peopleuncomfortable. Moreover, a small number (16 percent) agreethat they sometithes'avoid.PTV to avoid fund requests. Asubstantial minority (46 percent) would prefer total govern-ment support rather than dependence on donations. AAd aquarier of people who ever watch PTV agree that public tele-vision "can't be very good" if it has difficulty in supporting.

'itself. 4

In balancing the purpose of appeals against objections,,people who watch PTV overwhelmingly agree that "these.ap-peals are a fair price to pay for the programming on publictelevision."

8

On-air appeals have been seen by a reported 58 percent ofever viewers of. PTV and by GS percent.of past-week viewers.And donations to PTV -- not ,necessarily in response to r-air appeals -- are reported to have been made at some time

...by 24 percent of ever viewers'and by 34 percent of past-weekviewers.

As compared.with viewing nondonors, donors to PTV .exhhigher levels of exposure to the medium and to its,furaising, react ,more favorably .to on-air appeals, are leSssatisfied with total TV prograMming and more satisfied withPTV programming, tend to be more upscale socieleconomicalJY,older, and to reside in the more populous counties.

9

se.

FINDINGS

Report 1 Of this series dealt with reception, awareness,and viewing of public television. This volume reports find-ings concerning PTV ftand7raising.

Respondents to whom PTV is available, whether or notthey areaware of the channel, werre asked what they consider t0 be thesources Of public television funding, whether they have everseen an on-air fund drive, how they feel about such drives ingeneral, how they react to specific statements about on-airfund-raising,, and whether they agree that fund appeals are afair price to pay for the programming on PTV.

Awareness of Funding Sources

Twenty-nine percent of the respondents are anable tO respond toan open-end question on the sources of PTV funding,: by viewerstatus, no response was given by 44 percent of nonvieweA,23 percent of ever viewers, and 18 percent of past-weekviewers-.

Among those who answer this question, the great bulk (74 per-cent) recognize private donations as a source of PTV funding.(See Chart 1.)

Exposure to On+Air Fund-Raising 4Among ever vielArs of PTV, 58 percent state that they have"seen or heard, on TV, an appeal for funds to support thepublic television station." The proportion rises to 65 per-.cent among past-week viewers. If "no answers" are eliminated,the proportions reporting exposure to on-air appeals are 58

percent of ever viewers, 67 percent of past-week viewers.

. Reaction to On-Air Fund-Raising

Respondents were asked how they "feel about a public tele-vision station appealing, on the air, for funds'for its suP-port."

The following sutmarizes the responses.

10

Chart 1

Sources of Funding of Public Television

Source Named Perogntage of Population

Private donations

Government-general-o MMUMAMUM1_

Oorporate grants MUMMEMUM

Grants-general MOMS

Foundations

State/local goArnment

Federal government/CPB/PBS

Educational inatitution,s KKR

74%

71%

19.1.

14%

8%

Other KMUUMI 14%

Base: Persons to whom PTV isavailable, with "noanswers" elimineted:

Total (739)

Percentage of PTV,ViSub rou

NeveriEver Past-W

641!--7.11r 7.9%

19 71 23

10 19 25.

7 13 19

4 12 1 7

7 10 7

5 5 9

7 7 5

26 6 10

(218) (191) (330)

To be read: Of the,. totanDopulation with PTV available, 74%.cited private donations; etc.

ReactionPTV Viewers' Those Who Have Seen

An On-Air Appealrver int-W'c

One or more_positive comments 75% .82% 89%

Worthwhile/needed 64 71 78

Those who view should pay 6 5 6

Effective 3 14 S

Prefer to other means of support 1 b 4

References to the appeal itself 4 3 14

No objecti.on 8 7 7

One or more negative comments 16% 18% 13%

Dislike/not needed 9 , 8 S

Not effective 5. 4 2

'Prefer other means qf support 4 3 2

Repetitive/done too often 2 6 5

Other * 1 1

Noncommittal 7* 5% 3%AS'

No answer 8% 4% 3%

Base 1 (247) (402) (487)

*Less than one-half of one percent

Seventy-five percent of ever viewers rexpond with at least onefavorable comment to this open-end question, 16.Peroent withat l'east one unfavorable comment (note t-hat the same respon-(lent could offer both unfavorable and fAvolble responses), gr.

7 percent with-a.noncommittal comment, and percent with nocomment at all.

Among past=week viewers, 82 percent respond with a favorablecomment, 18 percent with an unfavorable statement, "5-percent'are noncommittal, and 4 percent do not respond.

.The response is even more positive among people who reporthaving Seen an on-air appeal.

Generally spea),ing, favorable statements reference the needfor funds or the fact that the fund-raising effort is worth-while. The most frequent negative response is a general state-ment of dislike or refutation of needifor on-air fund-raising.AMong past-week viewers, 6J)ercerit complain that the appealsare repetitious or presented too fr.eauently 3 percent of everviewers offer his comment.

2

4

'Specific Sta'.tgents oh'Fund-Raising4

, e 4Followiri thdir response,to the open-end question, respondeiltspsere asked whether they strongly agree, agree somewhat, or

, not agree at all with each *of Seven statements "which people' have used to describe public televisign fund-raising appeals."i Chart 2 summarizes the r:esponses to these questions by pebpi.e.

who,ever_ watch public television. It also shows responses bythose who report they have seen on7air appeals. '

/- .

In,general,"the results indicate a---,osiiNie reaction_td mem:=be't.ship breaks on PTV:

-, There is substantial-agreement, tarticularlyamong those who have beeh Pxposed to,on-airappeals, that these app,eals are important to

*the survival of PTV. This confirms the re-sponse to the open-end question on fund-raising',whe e,the most frequently cited comment isth A. ttshe appeals are necessary/worthwhile.

- A majority, of people who watch PTV agree thatthey wish the appeals were unnecessary but

. tolerate them. It is possible that.some ofthe agreement to this question refers to the A

/ %wish for extinction rather than to the tol-e/ 'eration.

A Majority of pe6ple who watch PTV agree atleast somewhat that the appeals are enjoyable.

For the remaining items, agreement represents a negative re-action to on-air fund-raising:

- A majority 2f PTV viewers agree that theappeals maA people "uncomfortable.becausethey don't feel in a position to make con-tributions to public television." However,only a much smaller proportion (16 percent)agree that they sometimes avoid PTV to avoidrequests for funds.

- A substantial minority agree that PTV shouldbe supported by government and not tequidonations.

- About a quarter of viewers of PTV, and afifth of those who have seen appeals, agreethat "if public television is having troublesupporting itself, it can't be tvery good."

1 3

or:

Cba

Reaction to Statements Concernih On-Air Fund Appeals Among'Paqt-week or ever viewers of PTV

2. People who have seen on-air appeals Ut

."14.

Statement\ Percentage W14,Stràngly Agree or Agree Among Subgroups

%

Requests for money on TVare Important if publictelevision is to sUrvive

I wish they didri'-e' haveto have appeals on TVor support of public

television, but I

ttolerate them

.88$'

EMEEMEEEEMEEWEEEEEEEEMEEEEEWEEME 92%

61%60%

,Caitpaigni on T* to raisefunds for public MIKHEREKEEREKRIOIRNENENIDDIM

56%

television are enjoyabl MMMMMM.ggEggggggEE 601

Appeals for money makepeople uncamfortablbecause they don't feein a position to m econtributions to publictelevision

,Zublio television should be,opsupported totally by thegovernment and shouldnot require donations

MUEEEEMEWEEEEMEM

EECEEEEEEttCEEEEMW

If public television is KMBUMEHMUMN

having trouble supporting ggWCMitself, it can't be verygood

I sometimeltvoid watching Mannpublic levision EUWUbecause I don't want tobe asked for money

55%54%

46%43%

26%21%

16%16%

Base: 649 viewers, 487 people exp4ved to appeals; howeVer, "no answers" have been

eliminated. '

To be read: Of peOple who ever view. PTV, 88% strongly'agre&or agree,that.on-air fund requests

are important if ?TV is to survive; 92% of people who have seeh 4geals strongly

agree or agree with the statement; etc.

1 4

,

Reaction to On-Air FuilT-Raising'RecOnsidered

Having,reacted to these irividual sibatements on fund-raising,respondents were asked if they had anything fo add-to theirprev4pus comments aboutiappeals for funds on PTV. The fol-16wing summarizes reactions to both .questions combined.

Reaction

Onço more positive c ents

Worthw ile/needed-Those o vieWshOuld payEffedti ePrefer to Other mean Jof supP'ortReference to the -.peal itselfNo objection ,"Other

One-or more negative cOmments

Dislike/not neededNot:effectivePrefer other means of supportRepetitive/done too oftenOther ,

Noncommittal

No answer

Base (247) (02) (4'87)

PTV Viewe" Those Who Ha e SeeEver Past-eek An On-Air A al

77% -85% 91%

,.65 75 80911p.'. 9 106 7 8.

.2 7 7

' 8 7 10.'

8 7 8

1 3 2

24% 32% 25%

10 11 8

6 6 ' 4

12 14 103 8 6

1 3 . 3i.14%. 11% 8%

5% 3% 2%

If the above table is compared with that presented earlier,which showed response to the first open-end question, it will,be noted that on a combined basis, the proportion of everviewers of PTV who comment favorably rises from 75 percent to77 percent. The proportion,,citing an unfavorable reaction rne7more notably, ,rom 16 to 24 percent. For past-week viewers,the 'proportionskrise from 82 to 85 and from 18 to 32 percent.

This increase in negative comment on the second round of ques-tioning could be the result of several factors. 'For example,there is a possibility that the exposure to a series o'f state-ments, some 4nfavorab1e, reduces reluctance to comment adverselyto fund-raisihg; in essence, dissent may appear more sociallyacceptable. Moreover, .the statement content itself may triggerresponses which did not come to mind when reaction was firstsought. The most outstanding benefactor of this latter effectis -elle response indicating preference for other sources offunding (government, educational institutions, etc.); the pro-portion giving this response rises from 3 percent of ever andpast-week viewers-on the first question to 13 percent in total.

1 5

11.

_Trade-Off: Fil.4 Appeals And ogramming .1

I

The fund-raising series ended with the question: "Considering,on one hand, the purpose of televised appeals for funds to

,

support public TV and, on the other hand, people's objedtions/ to them, do you agree or disagree that these appeals are a

'fait, pinice to pay for the programming on public television?"*This question was,aSked because it is an adaptation of a ques-tion regular y asked in a syndicated survey concerning televi-sion\in kene 1 and its source of funding, i.e., commercials; theplIrpo-se s t determkne how the public trades off PTV pro-grammi g afid fund-raising as compared with the question of

whethe n-la'ving commercials on "IT is a fair.price to pay forbeing Able to watch it,."

Accor ing to trade press reports, the latter question in re-

cen. yearst has yielded in excess of 85 percent agreement amongose who responded. The question in relation to PTV yieldsragreement from 89 percent of ever viewers of PTV who respond,

and from 90.percent of Ast-week'vie5/Wrs. (In terms of tpeirrelation to the medium, past-week,viewers of PTV are the "blosestApproximation available to the general public, virtually all

/ of whom have watched some commercial television in the pastweek.) Judged on,this criterion, people are as accepting (orsomewhat more actepting) of fund appeals in return fol.', PTV as

they are of commerc n return for commercial TV.

.'' ..:Reactions of Nonviewe

Nonviewers of PTV.were asked the questions on fund-raising toascertain their reaction to the general concept. Nonviewersdiffer from viewers most, markedly in their greater inabilityor unwillingness.to answer the questions; the "no answer"categories are very large for this subgroup. To the extentthat they respond, nonviewers are fairly positive in theirreaction to on-air appeals, but less so than viewers.

On the pair of open-end questions on reaction to fund-raisingon-air, 57 percent of nonviewers submit at least one favor-able comment, 76 percent an unfamorable comment; 22 percent.are noncommittal, and 12 percent do not respond. On,thaspecific statements relating to fund-raising, substantialmaj,orities of those who respond agree that appeals are im-portant to survival of PTV and that they can tolerate. them;44 percent even agree with the statement that they Are enjoy-able. 1iowever, half of nonviewers agree that PTV cannot bevery good if it cannot be self-supporting, and 46 percentwould prefer total government support. Moreover, almost two-thii,ds agree that appeal_ make people uncomfortable, and aquarter agree that they avoid PTV to avoid fund requests.On balance, however, 71 percent of nonviewers state thapeals are a fair exchange for PTV programming.

16

-Donors to PTV

In the course of ask,ing household demographics, the followingquestion was included: "Have you eer made a donation io

.t>public'television, either in response to a televised appeal,

° mail, or some other kind of appeal?" Ainong the fgeneral.Ropu-lation, 21 percent rep /4t a donation to PTV. This proportion-is 8 percent among nonvi wers of PTV,. 24 percent among evervivers, and 34 percent among past-week viewers. (The ropor-

,

tions would increase somewhat if "no answers" were el inated.)

LOoking only at ever and past-wgekviewers of ,PTV,(and comparingthose' who report:a donation and those who do no-U, çne finds thefolloWing differences: (Some of these are depicte in Chart 3.)

12.

Awareness and viewing

- Donors a./4e to be Aware o heirPTV chanpel unaided , (92% versus 77% fnondonor ).

- Donors.ar more likely to be past-week viewersoof PTV (70% versus 59%).

- Donors who, viewed11ast week are more likelyto be -able to identify a.pThgram viewed (57%versus 44%).

Fund-raising

'u

- Donors are more liN41y,to have seen an on-air'apptal (89% versus°52%)-

- Donors are more likely to offer' a favorablecomment concerning on:Imair fund-raising (95%.versus 82%).

Donors are consistently more farbrably dis-posed toward on-air appeals as indicated bytheir rbaction to specific statements onfund-raising. *

Donors are more likely.to consider theseappeals a .fair exchange for PTV programming(96% versus 87%). .

1 7

Selected Differences between

Characteristic

Chart 3I

EVer and Past-Week Viewera Who Have or Have Not Donated to PTV

1. Doriors.,... Rmg

2. NOndonors EEE

13.

4.\

Percentagewith_the Designated Chariacteristic Among jSuigup;

40. 1

Aware of PTV channel unaided

Past-week viewer of PTV

Have seen on--a'r appeal

Make favorable comment on, on-air fund-raising

"Very satisfied" with PTV

Want more PTV drama

Want more Plyublic affairs

College grad+

Occupation of chiefwage earner iswhite collar

Household income $20,000+

45 years of age or older

0:13:1AX1:133:INAAAA:1:1133ATVICrrIAHAAAX:VIAXIAAXX

EEEE.EEEEEEEEEECEEEEEEEEEEEEEEcEEEEEEEE

uccuccutmccucetccmcuc ,. ,

'')

EEEEEEECEEEEEEWEEEEEEEEE

EEEEEEEEEEEEEMEEEEEEEEEEEktEEEEEEEEEEEE

EESEEEEEEEEEEE'

V90maxmommgeomsEEEEEEEEEECE

MUMMHMUMM-

EEEEEEE4

EEEEEEEEE

muunamitikaniaollacombuismifiollai

EEEECEEECEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

mummummumKmoxEEEEEEEEEE

#

EEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEE

0

Base: 196 donors, 425 nondpnors. However, "no

To be read:4

Of peopleare aware

anawers"

who ever watch PTV and, who report haof the channel unaided; of nondonors,

92%77%

8-9.%

52% .

95%82%

16.148% .).4

29%

38%_24%

21+%

16%

36%17%

63%46%

39%19%

52%39%

tt

been eliminated.

a donation, 92%arlikY4aware,urrided; etc-..

'

3. Progrmmings/--2

- Donors are less likely to be '!ve 7 satis-itied" with TV in general (7%;ve us

Donors are more likely to be "very satis-fied"'with PTV.programming (48% versus 29%).

-I. Donors are more(iikely to ask for more -

dramasip/aysN(.88% ve;,stis 20) and morepublia affairn9gramming (24% versus 16%).

emographics

-Donors are more jikely co be socioecOnomicallyupscale,.

To haA graduated from clege:(36%versus-17%).

-- To live in a white collar 11,31sehold(63% versus 46%).

-- To own a home (75% Versus 66%).

-- ...To be wtlite (SS% versus 86%).

-- To have a total household income ofi$20,000 or, more ii,er year (39% versus 19%).

Dpnors are more likely to be 45 years ageor older (5'2% versus 39% of nondonors).

Donors are more likely to reside in theAmostpopulous, A-size, counties (60% Versus

14.

APPENDIY A

METHODOLOGY

Sample Design

'The findius of this. study of public elevision aw epess,fund-raising, and programming apply to adults, 18 y rs of

age or older, re'siding'in telephone and television h use-holds in the continental United States.

lb.

Because of the_importance of tele hone households not listed

in c rent telephone directories, the sample used for thisrstudy Was a replicated randoM'sample of tele home lumbersbased on randtm-digit dialing.

\At least thrie:)attempts.w..ere maiie't in various t per*Ws,,

to reach eac telephone number in the predesignated sapip14-.

When a household was contacted, at least-four attempts weremade to interview the person who was randomly selected fromamong all adults living in the household., Additionalefforts were made by specially trained personnel to convertinitial refusals into interviews. Of the predesignatedsample, 49 percent were found to be household residences.Among household residenceA6where contact was made, inter-

, views were completed in 71TPercent.

Intervlew'Frocedures

Interviewing was conducted during February 1976 from theWestfield, New Jersey, and Crystal Lake, Illinois, officesof Statistical Research, Inc. by highly trained and closelysupervised interviewers. Edch interviewer received-tutoredinstrUction, extensive practice and drill, and the experience '

of several practice interviews. Interviewers were monitored .

by supervisory personnel via special equipment whieh is usedsolely for training and supervisory purposes.

Variabillity)of Results

,All survey results are s bject to variations or uncertain-ties that are a functio of (1) the fact that a particularsample was selected and, 2) the ethodS and proceduresadopted for the survey and the anner in which they werecarzqed out.

Sampling error, one of the two major sources of vari-ability, is the i_fference between the survey result obtained

with the sample actually used, and the result that would,be4 obtained by an attempted comp±ete survey of the poputatidll

, conducted in the same manner and with the same care.

2 0

16.

In a'survey bved on a probability sample, such as was usedin this study, t1e risks or probabilities of sampling errorof various sizes can be calculated in terms of standarderrors., Table A-1 provides standard errors That applyto proport4ons 'of people who responded in a particular mapner

-to questioris in ttlis study, given the samPle ease. If alrl

adults residing in telephone/television households in thecontinental Unitedi Statest were asked precisely the samequestion in precisely the Same manner as was the sample, theprobability is 9.5 percent that the proportion giving aparticular response would equal the sample proportion plusor.minus twp standard errors.

Nonsampling error cannot be measured as precisely, butcan only be estimated through Methodological research studiesor on'the basis of judgment. po.urcels of nonsampling errorinClude exclusion of liontelephone households from the samplingframe, failure'to obtain response from all predesignated

- sample members, pOssible response error on the part of res-pondents, interviewer variabil coding ,and processingerrors. -

These possible sources of err6i,.and fforts toMinimize them,as well, as other methodological-asp .cts of this study, arediscussed in more detail in the fourfh report of this series.

0'1

21

-0/

TABLE A-1

TABLE OF STANDARD ERRORi OF. A PROPORTION FOR VARY ING SAMPLE SUES'

IONSAMPLE SIZE '

400 450 500 550 600 650 700 74.

\ .

'85

175

CA

'65

/60

(55

11

0

50

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

100

4

4

5

5

5

5

\

"'"'

150

i

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

/

200

3

3

3

3

3

3

4,

4

\ 250

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

300

de 2,

3

3

3

3

3

3

1:-

1

350

2

2 ".

2

Y2

ci.3

3

2 2

2

2 2

2

2

3 2

2 2 1 1 1

2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 k2, 2 2

2 2 2 2 2

2 47 2 2 2 2ft

STAiisTICALRIAAACH, INC.

23

6

PROPORTION,

1

/

5/95

10/90

20/80,

25/75

30/70

35/65

50

TABU P.1

(CONTINUED)

,1

TABLE OF STANDARD ERRDRS OF A PROPORTION FOR VARYING SANP1E SIZES

BOO 850 900% 950 1000

1 1 1 1 1

, 1 , f 1 1,

1 1 1111 , I 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1

2 \ 2 2 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

4%

2 2 2 2 22

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 , 2 2 2

SAMPLE SIZ,E

650 1100 1150 :\1200.

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

.r

I

1 I 1

2 2 1 I

2 2 1LI

1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500

1 1 .1

1 1 1 1 1 1

,

1 1 i i 1

I 1 1 1 I

,

I 1 1 1 4 I

/

', 1 ' 1

1 I 4 1 1

11 1, 1 1 I

1

1 1 \ I I

25

STAMTICAL

IWEARCH, INC,

co

4

c..

APPENDIX 'B

COPY :OF 'QUESTIONNAIRE

2 6

19 .

#9G32: PUBLIC TELEVISION AWARENESS STUDY: JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1976

POSTED INTRODUCTION

GOOD EVENING (MORNING/AFTERNOON), THIS IS MRS, ANN CARTER, CALLINGYOU LONG DISTANCE IN CONNECTION WITH A SPECIAL STUDY ON TELEVISIONVIEWING. BUT FIRST LET ME VERIFY, IS THIS AREA CODE AND rHENUMBER IN STATE ?

YES - ASK Q.II NO VERIFY NUMBER REACHED, TERMINATE, CIRCLE"WN" AS RESULT AND REDIAL CORRECT,NUMBER.

II, 'HANK CAN YOU TELL ME PLEASE HOW MANY TELEVISION SETS YOU HAVEIN YOUR HOME?

ONE OR'MORE - CONTINUE WITH Q.III. NONE - TERMINATE AND RECORDRESULT AS "SOTV"

,III. NOW,A NEED TO SELECT ONE PERSON IN YOUR HOME TO INTERVIEWINOUT HIS

OR HER TELEVISION VIEWING, AN ORDER TO SELECT THIS PERSON Tr FIRSTNEED TO KNOW HOW MANY PE SONS 18 YEARS ' AGE OR OVER ARE CURRENTLYLIVING IN YOUR HOME') POES THAT INCLUDE YOURSELF? CIRCLE NUMBERON CRR CARD, IN SECT 0 BELOW,ATTEMPT #6 LINE.

IV. COULD YOU TELL ME HOW MANY OF THESE ARE MALES? RECORD M's ON CRR CARD,BELOW ATTEMPT #6. IF 4ALE CARD, CIRCLE NUMBER IN RESPONDENT SELECTORSECTION 110 CORRESPOND TN NUMBER OF MALES.'

THEN THERE IS (ARE) FEMALE(S) AGE 18 dIR OVER? RECORD F's og.CRRCARD, BELOW ATTEMPT #6. IF FEMALE CARD, CIRCLE NUMBER IN RESPONDENTSELECTOR.SECTION TO CORRESPOND WITH NUMBER OF FEMALES. r-

CHECK RANDCM NUMBER ABOVE CIRCLED NUMBER IN RESPONDENT SELECTOR SECTIONTO DETERMINE PERSON TO BE INTERVIEWED.

VI, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THE PERSON I NEED TO INTER.VIEW ISIF PERSON ONTELEPHONE, GO TO Q.1 ON QUESTIONNAIRE. OTHERWISE CONTINbEW/TH....IS HE (SHE) AVAILABLE NOW THAT I MIGHT SPEAK WITH HIM (HER).

YES - REINTRODUCE-PURPOSE OF CALL AND GO TO Q.1 ON QUESTIONNAIRE.NO -ARRANGE C,LLBACK VIA Q.VIt.

VIA, Female: WHAT WOULD BE A CONVENIENT TIME'IN THE MORNING OR AFTERNOONTUT I MIGHT CALL BACK TO SPEAK WITH HERY FOR WHOM SHOULD I ASK? <If female .unavailable during day, state: WE WILL TRY TO REACH HERSOME EVENING; :Record "Evening" in callback section-

Male: WHAT WOULD BE A CONVENIENT TIME THAT I MIGHT CALL TOCOMPLETE THE'INTERVIEW WITH HIM? FOR WHOM SHOULD I ASKW

RecOrd N.Y. time, day, date and name on CRR card.

CALLam.

-VII, GOOD EVENING (MORNING/AFTERNOON). THIS IS M ANN CARTER. MAY I

SPEAK WITH MR./MISS/MRS, PLEASE? THANK YOU,

IF RESPONDENT COMIS TO4PHONE, CONTINUE WITH Q.VIII.IF RESPONDENT IS "NOT AVAILABLE, ASK Q.VIA.

MRIMISS/MRS, J I'M CALLING YOU LONG DISTANCE IN COM-NECTION WITH A SPECIAL, STUDY ON TELEVISION VIEWING,

2 7

Ile

aAWARLNESS STUDY: FEBRUARY 1076

PROJECT P9G32: PUNAC TFLEVISION,.

4NO. IN PTV:

SLRIAL# ATT'S INT # unq . Viir....].UHF....2

-- None...3---

1. FIRST COULD YOU TELL ME-i) PLEASE, WHAT CHANNELS YOU CAN RECEIVE ON YOUR TELE-VISION SET? 2-ROBE UNTrp "NO OTilE1?." IF NONE ABOVE CH. 13 ASK: AND WHATABOUT THE CHANNELS BETWEEN 14 AND 83, THE UHF CHANNELS WHICH, IF ANY,OF THESE CHANNELS CAN YOU RECEIVE?

UELTAKE NOTE OF ANY PTVCHANNELS APPEARING ONCRR CARD.

2. IS THERE A PUBLIC TELEVISION OR EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION STATIONIN YOUR AREA?

YES

=2A. WHAT CHANNEL IS THAT?

DON'T KNOW

ONLY CH'S NOT.ON CARDElASK1+ CHANNELS ON CARD u..Q2C

RECORD ALL CHANNELS MENTIONEDBELOW

NO.A.E1

DK... .E

N....2

Y....1N....2

DK....9

213, ACCORDING TO OUR INFORFATION, THE1PUBLIC TELEVISION STAT1ON(S) IN YOURAREA IS(ARE) CHANNEL(S) HAVEYOU EVER HEARD OF CHANNEETS) ' ?

YES E ASK 2CNO/DK ED SKIP TO Q7**Except if 1 or 2 channels in 2A nollisted on CRP card,--See postedscript

Q2ACHANNELSUNAIDID

Q2BCHANNELSAIDED

Q2C CHANNELSRECEIVED

YES NO DK EX

Q2D RECEPTIONQUALITY

GOOD FAIR POOR DK

.

k

.

. .....

.

.

.......

*DO NOT USELINE IF CH# APPEARSIN Q2A

1 2 9

1 2 9

.1....2...9 ......

1 2 9

1 2

1. 2. .p

IF NONE RE-CEIVED, SKIPTO Q7

1

1

1 .....

1

1

1

2

r 2

2 .....

2

2

2

3

3

3 .....

3

3

3

4

44 .....

4

4

4

9

9

9

9

9

9

.

.

.

...

Q2ECBS.1 2 3 4 9

..

YES...1PART..NO....

MUST 111E.,,,..."11-....10 NO 2

NO PTV 3,UNCER.,4

1 2

.

1

CBS 1

3.

3

4

4

9

92B

'REPE T Q2C FOR APPROPRIATE CHANNELSIN ;11/2B; IF MENTIONED IN Q1'qsEBRA IKETED pORTION FOR Q2C.

a. CAN YOU REUIVE (YOU SAID YOU RECEIVED) CHANNEL ON YOUR TELE-.

SION SET':

2D.

Q2D FOR ALL CHANNELS RECEIVED.

WOULD ibu COKIDER YOUR RECEPTION ON CHANNEL EXCELLENT, GOOD,IR, OR POOR:

2E. WHAT ABOUT YOUR CBS CHARNEL WOULp YOU CONSIDER YOUR RECEPTION .ONCBS EXCELLENT, GOOD, FAIR, OR POOR!

28

3. 14AVE.YOU EVER WATCHED ANY PROGRAMSON CHANNEL THE PUBLIC TELE-VISION STATT5R7,

YES...1 ,ASX 3ANO...2 ) ASX 3A, 3B rFDK...3 NECESSARY, THEN

SKIP TO Q.7

3. HOW MUCH DOES THE QUALITY OF YOUR RECEPTION OF CHANNEL AFFECTa

THE AMOUNT OF YOUR VIEWING OF THE CHANNEL WOULD YOU SAY ITAFFECTS IT A GREAT DEAL 1 N ASX Q.3B

SOMEWHAT 2

OR NOT AT ALL 3 qicIR TO Q.4, DK 9

3B. IN WHAT WAY DOES IT AFFECT THE AMOUNTOF YOUR VIEWING?

THINKING ABOUT,A TYPICAL SEVEN DAY WEEK, INCLUDING'SATURDAY'AND SUNDAY,ABOUT HOW MUCH TiME DO YOU SPEND WATCHING PUBLIC TELEVISION..IWOULD YOUSAY THAT IN. A TYPICAL WEEK YOU.,..(BRACXETED PORTION)

5. THINKING ABOUT LAST WEEK) INCLUDING SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, ABOUT HOW MUCH TIMEDID-YOU SPEND WATCHING PUBLIC TELEVISION, WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU....

(DON'T) DIDN'T WATCH AT ALLYOU"(WATCH)ED LESS THAN AN Hoy?(PER WEEK.'

ABOUT AN HOUR (PER WEEt()2 OR 3 HOURS (PER WEE15)OR MORE THAN 3 HOURS (PER WEEK)DON'T KNOW

2

3

4

5

6

2

3

4

5

6

SKIP TOF-Q7

ASK Q8

6, CAN YOU TELL ME PLEAS,, WHAT PROGRAMSYOU WATCHED ON EVBLIC. TELEMLONL.Aaal wax? WHAT OJHER PUBLIC TELE-VISIQN PROGRAMS DID YOU-WATCH LASTWEEKY...WHAT OTHERS?'''PROBE UNTIL"NO OTHERS"

7, ARE THERE ANY CHILDREN UNDER 12YEARS OF AGE LIVING IN YOUR HOME?

8. 'DO THEY (DOES HE/SHE) Eua WATCHPROGRAMS ON CHANNEL -t

9. VHAT PROGRAMS DO THEY(DOES HE/41E) ATCH ONCHANNEL ?... AT OTHERS?PROBE UNTIL "JO OTHERS."

,FTvFROG.YES1

NO2

,

YES...1 ASX Q8.

NO...2 / SKQ10IP TO

DK. .3

YES...1 ASXNO 2 SKIT

Q9 CANNOT REC 3 TODK 9 Q10

.

i 'PTVYES1

NO2

_

10, NOW I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS.ABOUT PUBLIC TELEVISION IN GENERAL.THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS; WE ARE JUST INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU

' CAN THINK OF...

NOW, WHAT DO,THE WORDS "PUBLIC TELEVISION" OR "EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION" MEANTO YOU?...FAUSE; unietc volunteered also ask: HOW DOES PUBLIC TELEVISIONDIFFER FROM COMMEICIAL TELEVISION?

La:1 POSS..2 UNAWARF...3

11, IF WE THINK OF PUBLIC TELEVISION AS CHANNEL (A CHANNEL) 1/14ERE THERE ARENO COMMERCIALS; WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION AS id WHERE PUBLIC TELEVISIONOBTAINS ITS FUNDS FOR OPERATION?..OL'E: WHERE ELSE DO YOUTHINK runit TELEVISION OBTAINS ITS FUNDS FOR OPERATION?

29

12. PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS' (LIKE CHANKL ) SOMETIMES MAKE APPEALSON THE AIR FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THEIR VIEWERS. HAVE YOU YES...1EVER SEEN OR HEARD, ON TVA AN APPEAL roR FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE NO....2PUBLIC TELEVISION STATION( DK....9

13. qbwAo YOU FEEL ABOUT. A Elmuc TELEVISION STATION,APPEALING, ON THE AIR,FOR. FUNDS FOR IIS SUPPORT?..PROBE: HOW ELSE DO YOU FEEL ABOUT ON-THE-AIR APPEALS!

.

14. I AM GOING TO READ YOU A SERIES OF STAT MENTS WHICH PEOPLE HAVE USED TO

DESCRNE PUBLIC TELEVISION FUND-RAISING APPEALS. PLEASE TELL ME'WHETHERYOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE SOMEWHAT, OR bo NOT AGREE AT ALL WITH EACH

STATEMENT, KEAD.LIST, STARTING AT RED

&ED /

STATEMENT

STR'LYAGREE

AGREESOMEWHAT

NOT AGREEAT ALL DK

A. I WISH THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE AP- /P

PEALS ON TV FOR SUPPORT OF PUBLIC.TELEVISION, BUT I TOLERATE THEM 1 2 3 9

B. REQUESTS FOR MONEY ON TV ARE IMPOR-TANT IF PUBLIC TELEVISION IS TO SURVIVE 1 2 3 9

r---

C. CAMPAIGNS ON TV TO RAISE FUNDS FORPUBLIC TELEVISION ARE ENJOYABLE 1 2

,

3 9

D. IF PUBLIC TELEVISION IS HAVINGTROUBLE SUPPORTING ITSELF, IT CAN'TBE VERY GOOD 1 2 3 9

E. APPEALS FOR MONE.Y MAKE PEOPLE UN-COMFORTABLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEELIN A POSITION TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONSTO PUBLIC TELEVISION 1 2 i , 3 9

F, I SOMETIMES AVOID WATCHING PUBLICTELEVISION BECAUSE 1 DON'T WANT TO BEASKED FOR MONEY 1 2 3

G. PUBLIC TELEVISION SHOULD BE SUPPORTED )

TOTALLY BY. THE GOVERNMENT AND SHOULDNOT REQUIRE DONATIONS ...................... 1.

*C, ...2.... -....3.....9

NOW THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN YOUR REACTAON 1 SOME STATEMENTS ABOUT FUND-RAISING,IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD ABOUT HOW YOU PERSONALLY FEEL ABOUTRAISING FUNDS roR PUtLIC TELEVISION ON TV? If.appropriate, probe: HOW

ELSE DO YOU FEEL ABOUT RAISING FUNDS FOR PUBLIC TELEVISION ON TV?

16. CONSIDERING, ON ONE HAND, ThE PURPOSE OF TELEVISED APPEALSFOR FOrDs TO sUPPORT PUBLIC TV AND, ON THE OTHER HAND,PEOPLE'S OEJECTIOrS TO THEM, DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THATTHESE APPEALS ARE A FAIR PRICE TO PAY FOR THE PROGRAMMINGON PUBLIC 7ELEyISION?

17. NOW, THINKIUG OF ALL THE TV CHANNELS YOU VERY SATISFIED 1

WATCH, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH WHAT IS, SOMEWHAT SATISFIED .OR 2

AVAILAELE TO WAILH ON 'TELEVISION TNESE:DAYS NOT SATISFIED AT ALL 3

-- WOULD YoU SAY YOU ARE: DK 9

18. COULD YOU TELL NE PUY YOU FEEL THAT WAY?..PRORE: WHAT OTHER REASONSDO YOU HAVE FOP FLELING THIS WAVY

AGREE 1

DISAGREE 2

DK 9

:" 19. Now THINKING AGAIN OF FABLIC TELE-VISION, NOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH VERY IAIISFIED 1

WHAT,IS AVAILAHeE TO WATCH ON PUBLIC SOMEWHAT SATISUED OR 2

TELEVISION THESE DAYS--WOULD YOU SAY MnT SATISFIED

YOU ARE:/ DK 9

A COULD YOU TELL ME WHY You FEEL THAT WAy?..PROijR..wHAT,OIHER REASONSq210 YOU HAVE FOR FEELING THIS WAY?

20. THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF PROGRAMS AVAILABLESOME PaOPLE THINK THERE IS TUO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE OFPROGRAMS. WOULD YOU TELL ME, PLEASE, FOR EACH KIND,PUBLIC,TV HAS TOO MUCH PROGRAMMING OF THAT KIND, TOOENOUGHc READ LIST STARTING AT RED X.

ASX41 19A

,

ON PUBLIC TELEV SION,CERTAIN KINDS OFyHETHER YOU THINKLITTLE, OR JUST ABOUT-

REEnyel

.,.v

PROGRAM TYPETOOMUCH

TOOLITTLN

JUST ABOUT DON'TENOUGH YNON

DRAMATIC PLAYS 1 2 3 9

2. sPORTSi

1.

7 3 9

__ NATIONAL g WORLD NEWS 1 2 3 9

__ LOCAL NEWS 1 2 3 9

DISCUSSION PROGRAMS ABOUT NEWS AND EVENTS 7 2 3 9

__ 6 CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS 7 2 i 9

__ DOCUMENTARIES 14 1 7 3 9

CLASSICAL MUSIC AND OPERA 1 2 3 9

__ VARIETY SHOWS 3 2 3 9

10. SITUATION COMEDIES 1 2 3 9

__ 11. CONTEMPORARY MUSIC 1 2 3 9

12. moVIES 1 2 3 9

13. NATURE AND SCIENCE SHOWS 1 2 3 9

14. PROGRAMS OF SPECIAL INTEhEST TO IN.__MINORITY GROUPS 1 2 3 9

-- 15..,

PROGRAMS THAT GIVE ADVICE AND INFORMATION 1 2 3 9

21.. IF YOU HAD YOUR CHOICE, WHAT KINDS OFGRAMS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEEMORE OF ON PUBLIC TELEVISION?

22. DO YOU KNOW.IF THERE IS A NONCOMMERCIAL YES...1 -- ASK Q.23PUBLIC Rkoig STATION IN YOUR AREA? NO....2--- SKIP TO Q.25

a DK....9 -- SKIP TO Q.25

23. DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THE CALL' . YES...1LETTERS OR DIAL POSITION OFTHAT STATION?

24, DO YOU EVER LIINU T9 THEPUBLIC RADIO'STATIONY

(eal..Z letters or d-t.al posttton)-

4SK, IF NE6ESSARY: WHAT ARE THEY?

,NO....2DK....9

31YESNODK

1

2

9

25. (IS YOUR TELEVISION SET) (ARE ANY OF YOURTELLVMON SFtS) CONNECTED TO A CABLE

- TELEVISION SET?

YES 1

NO 2

.DY 9

A. THANK YOU, I HAVE ONLY A FEW REMAINING QUEST1ONS-WHICH ARE STRICTLYFOR PURPOSE§ OF CLASSIFICATION...HOW MANY PERSONS, INCLUDING CHILDRENAND ROOMERS, ARE CURRENTLY LIVING4N YOUR HOME...DOES THAT INCLUDEYOURSELF? 1 2 3 4 5 6+ DK....9

B. WHAT WAS IHE LAST GRADE YOU ATTENDEDIN SCHOOL?

Grade sch....1 College grad 5

1-3 yrs. 115..2 Coll. post grad 6

H.S. grad....3 Oth .7

Some coll....4 DK/NA

C. AND YOUR AGE IS? If neoessary, read 18-21...1 30-44...3 60+ 5

age categories. 22-29...2 45-59:..4 DK/NA 9

DI WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION THENATURE OF YOUR WORK?'

E. IN WHAT INDUSTRY DO YOU WORK?

F. ARE YOU 'THE CH1EFNAGE EARNERIN YOUR HOUSEHOLD?

G. WHAT IS YOUR RELAIIONSHIP TO THECHIEF WAGE EARNER?

H. WHAT IS THE OCCUPATION OF.THECHIEF VAGE EARNER?

I. IN WHAT INDUSTRY DOES HE/SHE WORK?

J. HOW MANY CARS, IF ANY, ARE THEREINaYOUR HOUSEHOLD?

K. DO YOU OWN OR RENT YOU4 'ME?

L. IS YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER LISTEDIN THE CURRENT TELEPHONE DIREC-TORY?

YES...( ) NO...( ) DK...( )

(Skip to J) (Ask G) (Skip to J)

_

1,1

0 2 3+ DK/NA...9

1

Own....1 ,Rent....2 DK/NA.,..9

Yes....1 - ASK N No. ..( - ASK MDK/NA..9 - ASK N

M. IS THATBECAUSE YOU HAVE RECENTLYMOVED QR DO YOU HAVE AN UNLISTEDNUMBER?

Moved 2

Unlisted 3

N. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR RACIAL WHITE...1 SPAN1SH...3 Oth 5

OR ETHNIC BACKGROUND AS: BLACK...2 ORIENTAL..4 DK/NA 9

Q. .HAVEYOU EVER MADE A DONATION TOPUBLIC TELEVISION, EITHER IN RE-SPONSE TO A TELEVISED APPEAL,MAIL, OR SOME OTHER KIND OF APPEAL?

P. YOULD YOU ESTIMATE THE TOTALIFJCOME OF ALL PERSONS IN YOURHOME TO BE:

Q. SEX OF RESPONDENT

Yes....1 - No....2 DK/NA....9

Under $5,000 1 $15,000-$19,900...4$5,000-$9,900 2 $20,000 or over...5$10,000-$14'000 3 DK/NA 9

Male 1 Yemale 2

THANK YOU. YOUR COOPERATION HAS BEEN VERY-HELPFUL.

3 2